Hi,
Below is a very interesting paper in Japanese which I translated over
the weekend. It is especially interesting to Buddhists and Hindus alike.
Hopefully, we'll get some interesting debate on this matter.
As usual, my Japanese is very POOR and I do not claim that the
following represents 100% of what Prof. Matsumoto wanted to say - esp. his
scholarly criticisms of his opponents. Be warned ! Also, because I am not a
Buddhist scholar, there are certain names and terms which I may have rendered
incorrectly.
Regards,
W.F. Wong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE TATHAGATHAGARBHA THEORY IS NOT BUDDHISTIC
=============================================
by Shiro Matsumoto
Professor of Buddhism at Komazawa University
(Translated from Chapter 1 of the book "Criticisms on the Tathagathagarbha
Theory")
As the title implied, I am of the opinion that the Tathagatha-
garbha theory is not Buddhistic. Below are my arguments to substantiate
this claim. In order to discuss this topic, it is necessary to clarify what
"Tathagathagarbha Theory" and "Buddhism" mean. Of course, strictly
speaking it is my personal opinion of what "Tathagathagarbha Theory"
and "Buddhism" which is the subject of this discussion.
First, I would like to clarify what "Buddhism" is to me. In short,
Buddhism to me is basically the theory of anatta ("no-soulness") and
paticca-samupatta ("dependent origination"). By "dependent origination",
I do not mean (the Mahayanist) "dependent-arising in the Dharmadhatu"
or "dependent-arising in the mutual interpenetration and simultaneous
arising in space". By "dependent origination" I mean the "Twelve Link
Dependent Origination" of the Mahavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka. I believe
that it was the realization and the reversal of these 12 links that the
Buddha realized at his Enlightenment.
However, by adopting such a view, I am likely to encounter
severe scholastic oppositions which hold that the Buddha's
Enlightenment has nothing to do with the Twelve Link Dependent
Origination or that Dependent Origination was a later invention or the
even more extreme view that Buddha's Enlightenment is not much
different from the philosophies of the Upanisads or the early Jains. Here,
I am do not have the space to deal with the difficult problem of primitive
Buddhism. But, daringly, I advocate the position that the Twelve Links
was what the Buddha realized. I plan to do two things. First, I wish to
oppose the view of objective scholasticism, i.e. scholastic studies that
claim objectivity, that final judgement on this matter has to be reserved.
Second, I wish to challenge the view that the Buddha's enlightenment,
and therefore the whole of Buddhism, should not be understood from the
point of view of anatta and emptiness but rather from the point of view of
atma and form. The stand which I adopt is that the Buddha's
enlightenment is the realization of the Twelve Links of Dependent
Origination and that the doctrine of anatta is a natural consequence of
this realization.
Now, I must present the view of Buddhism from the point of view
of atma and form. As a representative of this position, I shall use Shinichi
Tsuda. As is well known, in the Mahavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka there is
a stanza which says that immediately after the Buddha realized the
progress and reversal of the Twelve Links, in samadhi (the meditative
state), "all dhammas revealed themselves" (patubhavanti dhamma) to
him. This "all dhammas", according to Dr. Koshiro Tamaki, means the
"original state of all dhammas" or "the root of all dhammas". Tsuda
maintains that the basis of Dependent Origination is in the structure of
the Dharma. In the same paper, he repeatedly used terms such as
"ontological basis", "the existence of the basis", "the one source of the
world", etc. The following is an example,
"For example, the previously mentioned 'Sutra of the Elephant's Footprint'
contains metaphysical implications that the birth of human is from this unified
basis of the world and that his death signifies a reunification with this
basis."
This paper of Tsuda's neither express a complex nor a new idea. It is
typical and simplistic tathagatha-garbha theory, in other words it is
"dhatu vada". He does not seem to realize that all the words which he
used, and which I have quoted above, can be better summarized by the
word "dhatu". He only assert that the plural dhamma (dhammah) is
borned of a singular dhatu. This position of his that the Buddha's
enlightenment is based on the "singularly real source" is not acceptable to
me. I refer the reader to the second chapter for my criticism of his paper
and the discussion about Dependent Origination.
Instead of discussing about "dhatu vada", I would like to move
the discussion to the question of "what is the Tathagathagarbha theory ?".
It is my intention to show that the Tathagathagarbha theory is but dhatu-
vada. Before doing so, I wish to ask the reader to discard his
conventional preconceptions about what this theory is about. For
example, explaining the Dharmadhatu with "the world of Truth" is but a
conventional concept. Even taking the word "dharma" to mean "truth" is
a mistake. Also, I believe that there is no scripture proof that the doctrine
of the "self enlightened mind"is a central doctrine of the Mahayana or
that the Prajnaparamita corpus admits this doctrine. According to Dr.
Akira Hirakawa, the oldest sutra in the Prajnaparamita corpus is almost
certainly the Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 lines (Astasahasrika
Prajnaparamita Sutra) and in it the Sanskrit statement for the "self
enlightened mind" (prakrtis cittasya prabhasvara) is not to be found.
Also, I do not think the Tathagathagarbha theory is a theory of
equality. In fact, I think it is a theory of discrimination. The reason will
be made clear later. For those who accept the Tathagathagarbha theory as
a theory of equality, I wish to refer you to the Mahayanasutralamkara or
the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. The Mahayanasutralamkara is
famous for advocating the Yogacarin's position of the reality of the Three
Vehicles. In stanza 37 of chapter 9 is the famous "all beings are of the
tathagathagarbha". However, in stanza 11 of the third chapter is the
mention of the "hetuhina". This is explained in the commentary as "those
being complete lacking the seed of Nirvana"
(atyantaparinirvanadharman). In other words, what we must take note of
here is that the thesis that "all beings are of the tathagathagarbha" is
clearly different from the position preached by the Lotus Sutra that "all
beings will be Buddhas".
Similarly, in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, although one hears of
"all beings possess buddha-nature", there is also numerous mention of the
icchantika - "those beings who shall never achieve Buddhahood". In the
Tibetan version of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, we have the two following
verses,
1. All beings have buddha-nature (buddhadhatu). This nature
(dhatu) is in the body. With the cessation of all sufferings, one
becomes a Buddha. The exception being the icchantikas.
2. Although the icchantikas too has buddha-nature, it is in
infinitely deep dirt. Like a pupa which is unable to break an
opening in its own cocoon, for these icchantikas, the buddha-
nature encased in the infinitely thick karma is unable to come
through. Because of this, they shall never break the cycle of
birth and death.
Although Dr. Jikido Takasaki has attempted to explain this "except the
icchantikas" problem away, I find his arguments unconvincing. The
second verse showed even the icchantikas has buddha-nature. What they
are "except"ed from is the fact of "becoming Buddhas". Also, depending
on how one reads the (original of the) first verse, the icchantikas may in
fact be only an example of the exceptions. In any case, it is quite clear
that it is incorrect to equate "all beings have buddha-nature" with "all
beings shall be Buddhas".
It is also now known from Dr. Takasaki's research that in
Vasubandhu's "Treatise on the Lotus Sutra" (Saddharmapundarikopadesa) the
position of "all beings have buddha-nature" is discussed together with the
details of each of the Three Vehicle while denying the position of "all beings
shall be Buddhas". Therefore, it is not possible to accept the view that the
"tathagathagarbha" or "buddha-nature" theory is but an optimistic
interpretation of "the potential of Buddhahood". With the above discussion, if
we include the "non-discrimation in the Dharmadhatu" position of the
"Treatise on the Meditation on Reality" (Abhisamayalamkara), which we will
discuss later, we have the following
All Beings are of Tathagathagarbha
(Mahayanasutralamkara)
and
All Beings have Buddha-Nature
(Mahaparinirvana, Saddharmapundarikopadesa)
and
There is No Discrimination in the Dharmadhatu
(Abhisamayalamkara)
NOT EQUAL
All Beings Shall Be Buddhas
(Saddharmapundarika)
Now, in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the original word for
"buddha-nature" is the word "buddha-dhatu". I cannot understand the
relationship between the word "buddha-dhatu" and "the potential to be
Buddhas" or "the nature of Buddhas". The word "dhatu" means "a place
for storage". There is therefore no connection between this word and
"nature" or "potential".
Here, in order to clarify the meaning of the word "dhatu", I need
to discuss the basic principles of the Tathagathagarbha theory and I
called "dhatu-vada". "Dhatu-vada" is a term coined by myself and I
would like to explain it with the following diagram.
---------- ---------- ----------
| dharma | | dharma | | dharma | = super-locus
---------- ---------- ----------
/ \ / \ / \
| | |
| | |
| | |
------------------------------------------
| dhatu (atman) | = locus
------------------------------------------
In the figure, the lower part is the locus (which I shall abbreviate as L)
and the upper part is the superlocus (abbreviated as S). The following is
the basic tenet of dhatu-vada :
1. L is the basis of S.
2. Therefore, S is borned from L.
3. L is singular while there are many S.
4. L is real while S is unreal.
5. L is the atman of S.
6. S is unreal but because it is borned of L which is real, there is a
degree of reality in S.
Let us examine the above. Needless to say, (1) is the very basis of dhatu-
vada. (2) asserts that S is "borned from" L and therefore the primacy of L
is introduced. If we accept that (3) and (4) asserts that L is the sole
reality, then we are forced to conclude that S is different from L. But if
this is the case, it is meaningless to assert that S is borned of L. As for
(5), we can reason as follows. For the relationship "without a, there is no
b" (avinabhava), we can say that atman is the a. Without L, S is not
possible. In fact, the major Tathagathagarbha sutras such as the Lion
Roar of Queen Srimala and the Mahaparinirvana clearly asserts L as the
atman. (6) is the basic principle behind the discriminatory nature of the
Tathagathagarbha theory. It can also be seen as the same principle behind
the 5 Natures and the caste system. Why is this so ? In the figure, there
are 3 dharmas supported by L. Here we can replace them with the
icchantikas or the 5 Natures of which contains the agotras (those who
will never become a Buddha) in S. Doing so will not set the "all beings
have Buddha-nature" and "the icchantikas shall never become Buddhas"
principles in contradiction. Indeed, they are consistent. Furthermore, in S
we can also place such social classes as kings, peasants and slaves etc.
without causing any contradiction. However, the existence of "multiple
natures" in S is an unavoidable consequence of the theory - it cannot be
removed from the theory. Therefore, the so-called discrimination of
existence is made absolute here. To review, the singularity of L (equality)
does anything but remove the discriminatory nature of S. Indeed, it
supports it and is its source. It is therefore clear that the theory is a
discriminatory one.
Summarizing the above dhatu-vada, we have "the singular, real
dhatu gives birth to plural dharmas". Simply, it can be thought of as a
theory of singular source, multiple ends or as a theory of reality of the
source. Elsewhere I have argued that this dhatu-vada as represented by
the Lion Roar of Queen Srimala can be seen to have its source in the
chapter on the Parable of the Herb of the Lotus Sutra and developing
through the Gandavyuha chapter of the Buddha-avatamsaka Sutra
maturing in the Sutra of Non Increasing and Non Decreasing. The basis
of dhatu-vada can also be found in the following verses from the
Mahayana Abhidharma Sutra and the Abhisamayalamkara,
1. anadikaliko dhatuh sarvadharmasamasrayah
tasmin sati gatih sarva nirvanadhigamo
"The beginningless dhatu is the basis of all dharmas. This being
the case, in it is all meanings and with it is Enlightenment
attained." (Mahayana Abhidharma Sutra)
2. Dharmadhator asambhedad gotrabhedo na yujyate
adheyadharmabhedat tu tadbhedah parigiyate
"Because of the non-discriminating nature of the Dharmadhatu,
discrimination between the different Natures is therefore illogical.
However, all dharmas which must be based on it are different, we
therefore speak of discrimination." (Abhisamayalamkara)
In the verse from the Mahayana Abhidharma Sutra, the phrase "tasmin
sati" besides indicating the locus also indicate the reason. In the verse
from the Abhisamayalamkara while insisting on the non-discriminating
nature of the Dharmadhatu finally had to concede to the reality of the
discriminatory nature of the various dharmas. This discrimination is
common to all Tathagathagarbha based theories.
This "the primodal principle is singular and non-discriminating
out of which the discriminating reality is borned and formalized" system
of thought is also clearly visible in the Japanese Hongaku (Original
Enlightenment) theory which is based on the Tathagathagarbha theory.
With regard to this point, I refer to Dr. Noriaki Kotani's paper "A
personal view on the background behind thought systems which gives
rise to discrimination". In it, Dr. Kotani, based on Dogen's philosophical
system, criticized the Hongaku and Tathagathagarbha theories. This
interesting paper shows how Dogen's original philosophy evolved in later
Soto Zen and how Dogen has targetted the Hongaku theory for criticism.
Similarly, the same thing happened in India. The dhatu-vada
which I introduced here was in fact the target of Sakyamuni Buddha's
criticism. Needless to say, this was the Brahman-atman idea of the
Upanisads. Dr. Takasaki has shown how closely the Tathagathagarbha
theory and the philosophy of the Upanisads are related. Although till now
there is no work to show that the Buddha was criticizing the dhatu-vada,
it is very important to note that Paticca-Samuppada is admitted to be "the
sole source for all existence". In other words, it is an anti-thesis to the
Tathagathagarbha theory. Therefore, it follows that dhatu-vada is the
object of Buddhism's criticism.
The above is my argument that the Tathagathagarbha theory is
not Buddhistic. For non-Buddhists, it probably does not matter either
way. Believers of the Upanisads would probably find all this quite amusing. It
is the Buddhists whom I wish to address. For any who thinks that the
Tathagathagarbha theory is Buddhism, I hope you will realize quickly
that it cannot be anything other than the "dhatu-vada" which the Buddha
set out to criticize. I hope you will return to true Buddhism soon.
This article aims to make three points :
1. The Tathagathagarbha theory is "dhatu-vada".
2. "Dhatu-vada" was what the Buddha set out to criticize.
Buddhism (Paticca-samuppada) denies the "dhatu- vada".
3. Its time for Japanese Buddhism to reject the Tathagathagarbha theory
and to reform Buddhism.